Leaked Memo: What Did It Say?

[phildwyer]

So a civil servant and a researcher have been jailed for leaking a report of a secret conversation between Blair and Bush about the Iraq war.

None of the media are speculating as to what was actually in the memo. But it must have been something pretty shocking:

"Keogh was said to have described the contents as "abhorrent" and "illegal". According to O'Connor's statements to police, Keogh believed the memo exposed the US president as a "madman"."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2076478,00.html

Any guesses as to what might have been said to provoke such a reaction? What was Bush proposing, and in what was Blair colluding?

 

[corporate whore]

The Daily Mirror has previously reported the memo revealed details of a 2004 conversation between Bush and Blair at the White House where Blair argued against Bush's suggestion of bombing Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar.

 

[lostexpectation]

Keogh told the court he felt strongly about the memo, which he had to relay to diplomats overseas using secure methods, and hoped it would come to wider attention.

why would they send a memo with that info around the world?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6D1363A3-70CF-4B60-803F-0654D9A2AFC4.htm

 

[DrRingDing]

This does sound interesting

 

[phildwyer]

Hang on a second, I thought they already *did* bomb al-Jazeera's HQ, at least the one in Baghdad?

In any case, its strange that the press isn't making more of this. Journos usually stick together for protection.

 

[untethered]

The Daily Mirror has previously reported the memo revealed details of a 2004 conversation between Bush and Blair at the White House where Blair argued against Bush's suggestion of bombing Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar.

It wouldn't be out of character. They did the same with RTS in Serbia during the Kosovo war and killed 16 reporters and other staff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_RTS

ETA: Clinton was in charge at the time, of course, not Bush.

 

[detective-boy]

In any case, its strange that the press isn't making more of this. Journos usually stick together for protection.

Er ... no.

Anyone repeating what was in the memo would be committing the same breach of the Official Secrets Act as these two have just been convicted of ...

 

[Fez909]

Keogh was said to have described the contents as "abhorrent" and "illegal". According to O'Connor's statements to police, Keogh believed the memo exposed the US president as a "madman".

Maybe he was talking about nuking something?

 

[TAE]

The Daily Mirror has previously reported the memo revealed details of a 2004 conversation between Bush and Blair at the White House where Blair argued against Bush's suggestion of bombing Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar.

Yes, I think that was it, and it would certainly qualify as "abhorrent" and "illegal" - though there might be more.

 

[TAE]

Anyone repeating what was in the memo would be committing the same breach of the Official Secrets Act as these two have just been convicted of ...

You are right, of course, though I think that only applies to new information which is not already in the public domain.

Also - does anyone know how this affects overseas journalists ?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hang on a second, I thought they already *did* bomb al-Jazeera's HQ, at least the one in Baghdad?.

Nah, that was a couple of supposedly "stray" tank shells fired at the floor of the hotel al-J is based in. Bush was talking full-on air assault.

 

[oake]

Nah, that was a couple of supposedly "stray" tank shells fired at the floor of the hotel al-J is based in. Bush was talking full-on air assault.

A full-on air assault on a neutral country.

'Accidentally' hitting the AJ offices in Baghdad during hostilities might just about be explained away, but there could be no possible excuse for hitting Qatar.

 

[fela fan]

Hang on a second, I thought they already *did* bomb al-Jazeera's HQ, at least the one in Baghdad?

In any case, its strange that the press isn't making more of this. Journos usually stick together for protection.

D notices.

The british press is riddled with censorship. In particular over anything that is perceived to be of harm to the precious nation state.

The key, reading that report in the guardian, seems to me to be that the memo could have caused great angst over the US UK friendship. Seems likely that bush told blair something rather offensive about blair or britain. Bush is a madman, and plenty times before has exposed his love of violence and destruction. He also doesn't give a toss about relations.

He is simply off his head.

 

[In Bloom]

The key, reading that report in the guardian, seems to me to be that the memo could have caused great angst over the US UK friendship. Seems likely that bush told blair something rather offensive about blair or britain.

I don't know where you're getting your last sentence from.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, hinted that embarrassment was the real issue at stake when she signed a certificate for the court last year. She claimed the disclosure of the document would have a "serious negative impact" on UK-US diplomatic relations. "The ultimate consequence would be a substantial risk of harm to national security."

The prosecution admitted the leak did not contain any "actual damage", though it could have put British lives at risk. Martin Howard, a senior Ministry of Defence official, said any damage to British defence operations it might have caused was "short-lived".

The court heard that April 2004 was a particularly delicate period in Iraq. It is known, and was widely reported at the time, that British officials and military commanders were already expressing concern about US tactics. The British were concerned in particular about the US assault on Falluja, including the use of white phosphorous, which causes severe burns.

I mean, isn't it more likely from the wording that the memo described a proposed or actual US military tactic that the British government are too afraid to use in case they get caught?

 

[fela fan]

I don't know where you're getting your last sentence from.

I mean, isn't it more likely from the wording that the memo described a proposed or actual US military tactic that the British government are too afraid to use in case they get caught?

I inferred it from beckett's comment about a

"serious negative impact" on UK-US diplomatic relations.

But all we can do is infer, coz we ain't privvy to the memo. More's the pity, coz it may well contain stuff that could bring down one or both of the war criminals.

 

[Maxine]

I wonder if the jury read the memo. I'd love to have been on that jury. Are they bound by the official secrets act? I expect they are.

 

[TAE]

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, hinted that embarrassment was the real issue at stake when she signed a certificate for the court last year. She claimed the disclosure of the document would have a "serious negative impact" on UK-US diplomatic relations. "The ultimate consequence would be a substantial risk of harm to national security."

How could something Blair discussed with Bush damage UK/US relations?

Sounds like BAE all over again (or before, as it were). Perhaps it would actually have risked the further co-operation of middle east countries (like Qatar) in the WoT.

 

[phildwyer]

I don't know where you're getting your last sentence from.

I mean, isn't it more likely from the wording that the memo described a proposed or actual US military tactic that the British government are too afraid to use in case they get caught?

That's what I thought too: presumably chemical weapons or nukes. Would the proposed bombing of al-Jazera really have driven these two guys to put their careers and freedom on the line as they did?

But in any case, its a disgrace that the contents of the memo are being reported less than the punishment of those who leaked it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> I mean, isn't it more likely from the wording that the memo described a proposed or actual US military tactic that the British government are too afraid to use in case they get caught?

Or perhaps so morally repugnant that they don't want to be associated with the US using it?

 

[Fruitloop]

Got it in one.

 

[In Bloom]

Or perhaps so morally repugnant that they don't want to be associated with the US using it?

Call me a cynic, but I find it hard to believe that anything is so morally repugnant that most politicians wouldn't do it if they could get away with it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interestingly, April 2004 is when John 'Death Squads R US' Negroponte took over as US viceroy (aka Ambassador) in Iraq. It seems very likely to me that there were significant changes in US methods at about this time, as Negroponte was being sent in to sort things out, so it also seems fairly plausible to me that Bush might have told Blair about some of these proposed tactics at around that time.

 

[Fruitloop]

It's also just when the Abu Graib pictures started to come to light on 60 Minutes and stuff.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Er ... no.

Anyone repeating what was in the memo would be committing the same breach of the Official Secrets Act as these two have just been convicted of ...

Would they? I thought you had to sigh the Act first before you became bound by it.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Call me a cynic, but I find it hard to believe that anything is so morally repugnant that most politicians wouldn't do it if they could get away with it.

George this is Tony, you remeber me I'm the one with the wife with the cut throat smile and the Poodle like attitude. The one who lives with the Queen in Ingerlund. I'm sure you remeber anyway, About the use of illegal chemical and biological agents, white phospherous and the like, it seem that the huage classified these as illegall weapons of mass destruction which would mean that I could be indited for war crimes when i step down. I know you've said many time u-rurp how gives a fuck, but thing is i live here and it'll really damage my abilty to set up that africa mission to rob charities blind and become the next jeffery archer if i have to be hung, you remeber that pension fund idea i told you about...

now i know you've previously said that only when i stick a corgie in my anus and take it full in the mouth like the dirty slut i am will you even consider not using those weapons but after the last time where you shat in my mouth i'd ahve thoguht you understand how much i care for you...

anyway ewan say's if you don't stop he and his mates are going to stop buying nikes...

 

[phildwyer]

Would they? I thought you had to sigh the Act first before you became bound by it.

So did I. I don't think there are legal obstacles to publishing at least a summary of the memo. So why is no-one doing this?

 

[TAE]

If I found a top-secret memo in my garden and published it on the web, I'm sure I'd get into trouble for that.

 

[zoltan]

If I found a top-secret memo in my garden and published it on the web, I'm sure I'd get into trouble for that.

but what if it was published overseas - say on a Chad website ?

 

[TAE]

No idea.

 

[Barking_Mad]

From the NYTimes

A witness in the case, Nigel Sheinwald, Mr. Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, said the contents of the document had a “direct bearing” on the presence of British troops in Iraq. Other witnesses said the document referred to the activities of British secret agents in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/world/europe/10london.html

Brunei Times

The memo, details of which were published in British newspapers in 2005, allegedly recounted how Blair dissuaded Bush from attacking the Qatar headquarters of satellite television news channel Al-Jazeera.

http://www.bruneitimes.com.bn/details.php?shape_ID=29703